DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8 February 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1 – English translation furnished with Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi discloses a battery device (abstract) comprising: a plurality of battery cells (abstract) stacked in a first direction ([0011]); a first lead tab (3b and 3c – see annotated Figure 3 of Kobayashi below) that is electrically connected ([0012]) to a first electrode tab (3a – see annotated Figure 3) provided for a first battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (1A – see annotated Figure 3), and a second electrode tab (3a – see annotated Figure 3) provided for a second battery cell (1B – see annotated Figure 3) adjacent to the first battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (see annotated Figure 3), and is formed integrally with at least one of the first electrode tab or the second electrode tab ([0012] – see annotated Figure 3); and a second lead tab (2b and 2c – see annotated Figure 3) that is electrically connected ([0017]) to a third electrode tab (2a – see annotated Figure 3) provided for a third battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (1D – see annotated Figure 3), and a fourth electrode tab (2a – see annotated Figure 3) provided for a fourth battery cell (1C – see annotated Figure 3) adjacent to the third battery cell among the plurality of battery cells (see annotated Figure 3), and is formed integrally with at least one of the third electrode tab or the fourth electrode tab ([0017]), wherein the first lead tab and the second lead tab are adjacent to each other in a second direction that intersects the first direction (see annotated Figure 2 of Kobayashi below).
PNG
media_image1.png
1004
1517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1), annotated for instant Claim 1
PNG
media_image2.png
903
1431
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 from Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi discloses the battery device according to Claim 1. Kobayashi further discloses wherein the first lead tab (3b and 3c – see annotated Figure 3 below) bent toward one side in the first direction (see annotated Figure 3), and the second lead tab is bent toward another side in the first direction (see annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
1070
1431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1), annotated for instant Claim 2
Regarding Claim 3, Kobayashi discloses the battery device according to Claim 1. Kobayashi further discloses wherein the first battery cell includes a body portion (see annotated Figure 3 below) provided with the first electrode tab (3a - see annotated Figure 3), the first lead tab is formed integrally with the first electrode tab ([0012] – see annotated Figure 3), and the first electrode tab is located between the body portion (see annotated Figure 3) and the first lead tab (see annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
957
1430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1), annotated for instant Claims 3-4
Regarding Claim 4, Kobayashi discloses the battery device according to Claim 1. Kobayashi further discloses wherein the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab are overlapped in the first direction (see annotated Figure 3 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1 – English translation furnished with Office Action) in view of Sunaga et al. (US12355110B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Kobayashi discloses the battery device according to Claim 1 but does not disclose the battery device according to Claim 1 further comprising a sub-board wherein the first lead tab and the second lead tab are connected; nor a main board to which the sub-board is connected via a flexible member.
Sunaga discloses a battery device (“electricity storage pack” – col. 6, line 63) comprising a plurality of battery cells (col. 7, lines 22-23). Sunaga further discloses wherein there is a sub-board (30B; col. 8, lines 19-20) to which a lead tab (21; col. 9, lines 1-9) is connected (col. 9, lines 1-9); and a main board (30A; col. 8, lines 14-18) to which the sub-board is connected (col. 9, lines 1-9) via a flexible (col. 8, lines 24-30) member (42; col. 8, lines 64-67; col. 9, lines 1-9) for the purposes of transmitting information on detected voltage, currents, temperatures, and the like of the battery cells (col. 8, lines 2-13) in a manner that improves the yield of the main board (col. 16, lines 9-15). Both Kobayashi and Sunaga are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery devices comprising a plurality of battery cells. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have modified the battery device of Kobayashi such that it has the structure disclosed above of Sunaga for the purposes of transmitting detected information on the battery cells in a manner that improves the yield of the main board, as taught by Sunaga.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/432,128 (Lee et al. - US20240266696A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant Claim 1 and claim 1 of Lee disclose a battery device comprising: a plurality of battery cells stacked in a first direction; a first lead tab that is electrically connected to a first electrode tab provided for a first battery cell among the plurality of battery cells, and a second electrode tab provided for a second battery cell adjacent to the first battery cell among the plurality of battery cells, and is formed integrally with at least one of the first electrode tab or the second electrode tab; and a second lead tab that is electrically connected to a third electrode tab provided for a third battery cell among the plurality of battery cells, and a fourth electrode tab provided for a fourth battery cell adjacent to the third battery cell among the plurality of battery cells, and is formed integrally with at least one of the third electrode tab or the fourth electrode tab, wherein the first lead tab and the second lead tab are adjacent to each other in a second direction that intersects the first direction.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
_____
Claims 2-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/432,128 (Lee et al. - US20240266696A1) in view of Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1).
Regarding Claim 2, both the instant Claim 1 and claim 1 of Lee disclose the battery device according to the instant Claim 1. Lee does not however disclose wherein the first lead tab is bent toward one side in the first direction, and the second lead tab is bent toward another side in the first direction.
Kobayashi discloses the battery device according to instant Claim 1 (see rejection of instant Claim 1 under U.S.C. 102, detailed above). Kobayashi further discloses wherein the first lead tab (3b and 3c – see annotated Figure 3 below) bent toward one side in the first direction (see annotated Figure 3), and the second lead tab is bent toward another side in the first direction (see annotated Figure 3). Both Lee and Kobayashi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery devices comprising a plurality of battery cells. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery device of Lee with the structure disclosed above of Kobayashi because doing so amounts to nothing more than the rearrangement of parts, which is consequently no more than an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Thus, although instant Claim 2 and claim 1 of Lee are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
1070
1431
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1), annotated for instant Claim 2
Regarding Claim 3, both the instant Claim 3 and claim 1 of Lee disclose the battery device according to the instant Claim 1. Lee does not however disclose wherein the first battery cell includes a body portion provided with the first electrode tab, the first lead tab is formed integrally with the first electrode tab, and the first electrode tab is located between the body portion and the first lead tab.
Kobayashi discloses the battery device according to instant Claim 1 (see rejection of instant Claim 1 under U.S.C. 102, detailed above). Kobayashi further discloses wherein the first battery cell includes a body portion (see annotated Figure 3 below) provided with the first electrode tab (3a - see annotated Figure 3), the first lead tab is formed integrally with the first electrode tab ([0012] – see annotated Figure 3), and the first electrode tab is located between the body portion (see annotated Figure 3) and the first lead tab (see annotated Figure 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
957
1430
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 from Kobayashi et al. (JPWO2016020999A1), annotated for instant Claims 3-4
Both Lee and Kobayashi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery devices comprising a plurality of battery cells. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery device of Lee such that the first battery cell includes a body portion provided with the first electrode tab as taught by Kobayashi, because it follows that if a first electrode tab is provided for a first battery cell, the first battery cell would necessarily have a body portion by virtue of being a physical object. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery device of Lee such that the first lead tab is formed integrally with the first electrode tab, and the first electrode tab is located between the body portion and the first lead tab, because doing so amounts to nothing more than making said first electrode tab integral – an obvious engineering choice (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)). Thus, although instant Claim 3 and claim 1 of Lee are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding Claim 4, both the instant Claim 4 and claim 1 of Lee disclose the battery device according to the instant Claim 1. Lee does not however disclose wherein the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab are overlapped in the first direction.
Kobayashi discloses the battery device according to instant Claim 1 (see rejection of instant Claim 1 under U.S.C. 102, detailed above). Kobayashi further discloses wherein the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab are overlapped in the first direction (see annotated Figure 3 above). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery device of Lee such that the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab are overlapped in the first direction, because doing so amounts to nothing more than the rearrangement of parts, which is consequently no more than an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)). Thus, although instant Claim 4 and claim 1 of Lee are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
_____
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/432,128 (Lee et al. - US20240266696A1) in view of Sunaga et al. (US12355110B2).
Regarding Claim 5, both the instant Claim 5 and claim 1 of Lee disclose the battery device according to the instant Claim 1. Lee does not however disclose that the battery device according to Claim 1 further comprising a sub-board wherein the first lead tab and the second lead tab are connected; nor a main board to which the sub-board is connected via a flexible member.
Sunaga discloses a battery device (“electricity storage pack” – col. 6, line 63) comprising a plurality of battery cells (col. 7, lines 22-23). Sunaga further discloses wherein there is a sub-board (30B; col. 8, lines 19-20) to which a lead tab (21; col. 9, lines 1-9) is connected (col. 9, lines 1-9); and a main board (30A; col. 8, lines 14-18) to which the sub-board is connected (col. 9, lines 1-9) via a flexible (col. 8, lines 24-30) member (42; col. 8, lines 64-67; col. 9, lines 1-9) for the purposes of transmitting information on detected voltage, currents, temperatures, and the like of the battery cells (col. 8, lines 2-13) in a manner that improves the yield of the main board (col. 16, lines 9-15). Sunaga is analogous to the current invention because it is related to the same field of endeavor, namely battery devices comprising a plurality of battery cells. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have modified the battery device of Lee such that it has the structure disclosed above of Sunaga for the purposes of transmitting detected information on the battery cells in a manner that improves the yield of the main board, as taught by Sunaga. Thus, although instant Claim 5 and claim 1 of Lee are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
References cited but not relied upon
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Kim (US20130280587A1) discloses a battery module with bent electrode leads electrically connecting cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kent G. Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)482-9953. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.G.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights